Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Fr. Paulsen.Introduction to Philosophy

Written:1903Source:Lenin’sCollected Works, 
			 4th Edition, Moscow, 1976,Volume 38, pp. 53 - 55Publisher:Progress PublishersFirst Published:1930 inLenin Miscellany XIITranslated:Clemence DuttEdited:Stewart SmithOriginal Transcription & Markup:R. Cymbala&Marc SzewczykRe-Marked up & Proofread by:Kevin Goins(2007)Public Domain:Lenin Internet Archive (2003).You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

Remarks on Fr. Paulsen’s
			 book “Einleitung in die Philosophie,”
			 1899(Fr. Paulsen,Introduction to
			 Philosophy,1899) are contained in the
			 same notebook in which the note on the book by
			 Überweg is recorded (entries made in Geneva in
			 1903). After the remarks in the notebook on
			 Paulsen’s book, there follows: “Note on
			 the Position of the NewIskra.” 
			 (See Lenin, pres. ed., Vol. 7.)Note that this document has undergone special formating to ensure that Lenin’s
	 sidenotes fit on the page, marking as best as possible where they were 
	 located in the original manuscript.

Highly characteristic is the frank formulation
		      of thequestion in the introduction: the
		      task of modern philos-ophy is “to
		      reconcile the religious world outlook and
		      thescientific explanation of nature”
		      (p. IV[1]). Sic! And thisidea is developed most circumstantially: there is said tobe a struggle on two fronts—against materialism and “Je-suitism” (both Catholic and Protestant). Materialism, ofcourse, is understood (described?) as rein mechanisch,physikalisch u.s.w.[2]

The author also says directly that modern
		      philosophyrests onKantand is the representative of “idealistic mon-ism.”

Up to p. 10 ...“Peace between science and
		    faith...”

And p. 11: “The real corner-stone ofKant’sphiloso-phy” (to create
		    this peace) ...“is to give to both their
		    due:to knowledge against the scepticism ofHume, 
			to faith a-gainst its dogmatic negation
		    in materialism—that is thesum-total of
		    his undertaking.” (12)

“What is capable of disappointing this
		    hopeful” (the hopeof thispeace) “expectation is the
		    absolutely anti-religious

radicalism that is at present
		    becoming widespread in thebroad mass of the
		    population.... Thusatheismnow ap-pears” (as formerly among the bourgeoisie)
		    “as an articleof faith ofSocial-Democracy” (pp. 14-15). “It is
		    the cat-

echism turned inside out. And like
		    the olddogmatism,this new, negative
		    dogmatism, too, is hostile toscience,

insofar as by its dogmas it puts
		    fetters on the spirit ofcriticism and
		    doubt.” (He recalls the termAntipfaffen[3]and
		    assures us that Christianity has no predilection
		    forthe rich, that it (Christianity) will go
		    through the samestruggle towards which Europe
		    is advancing.)

Refutingmaterialismand defending the theory
		    of All-beseelung[4](which he interprets in
		    anidealistsense),Paulsen
		    ignores: 1) that he is not refuting materialism,
		    butmerelysomearguments ofsomematerialists; 2) that hecontradictshimself in interpreting
		    modern psychology inan idealist sense.

ⅩCf. p. 126. 
			“A force ... is nothing but a
            tendency toa certain action, and hence in its
            general essence coincideswith an unconscious
            will.”

(Ergo—Seelenvorgänge und 
			Kraft[5]are by no meansso unüberbrückbar[6]as it
		    previously seemed to the author,p. 90 u. ff.[7])

Pp. 112-116: Why could not the Weltall[8]be thebearer of des
		    Weltgeistes?[9](because man and hisbrain are thehighestdevelopment of
		    mind, as the authorhimself admits.

When Paulsen criticises materialists—he
		    counterposesthehighestforms ofmindtomatter. When he defendsidealism
		    and interprets modern psychology
		    idealistically—he approximates the lowest
		    forms of mind to Kräfte,[10]etc. That is the Achilles heel of his
		    philosophy).

Cf. especially pp. 106-107, where Paulsenopposesthe view thatmatteris somethingdead.

The author seems to dispose too lightly of the con-cept that Gedanke ist Bewegung.[11]His arguments a-mountonlyto “ordinary
			common sense: senseless,”“thought is not motion, but thought” (87).
			Perhaps heat,too, is not motion, but heat??

Quite stupid are the author’s arguments that a
            physiol-ogist will not cease to speak about
            thoughts, instead ofmovements equivalent to
            these thoughts? And no one willevercease to speak about heat.

One who has fallen in love does not speak to
            “his lady-love about the corresponding
            vascular-motor process....That is obviously
            nonsense” (86-87). Precisely what is doneby Herr Paulsen! And if we experience a lack of
            heat, wedo not speak about heat being a form of
            motion, but ofhow to get some coal.

Paulsen considers that the statement that thought
            is Be-wegung[12], is sinnlos.[13]But he himself is against dualism,and speaks about the
            “equivalent” (140and
            143)—“thephysical equivalent of the
            psychical” (or Begleiterschein-ung[14]). Is not that the
            same begriffliche Konfusion[15]forwhich
            he contemptuously abuses Büchner?

When Paulsen declares that his parallelism is
            “not local”but “ideal”
            (p. 146), his dualist character shows still moreclearly. That is no explanation of the matter, nor a
            theory,but a simple verbal trick.

[1]Paulsen, Fr.,Einleitung in die Philosophie, Berlin,
            1899.—Ed.

[2]purely mechanical,
            physical, etc.—Ed.

[3]anti-clericalism—Ed.

[4]universal soul
            embodiment—Ed.

[5]soul processes and
            force—Ed.

[6]incompatible—Ed.

[7]und folgende—et
            seq.—Ed.

[8]universe—Ed.

[9]universal
            spirit—Ed.

[10]forces—Ed.

[11]thought is
            motion—Ed.

[12]motion—Ed.

[13]senseless—Ed.

[14]accompanying
            phenomenon—Ed.

[15]conceptual
            confusion—Ed.

ⅩContra p. 86:
			“Motion has absolutely nothing of thought in it....”